Sign in to follow this  
tannhauser

John Williams Oboe Concerto now available!

Recommended Posts

The movement have clean silences in between

So I isolated them , saved in WAV with the proper names, than made new 320k MP3's with LAME Drop. I don't think there will be any drop in quality with the re-encoding since it's a much higher bitrate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do that too, but why would I lose quality converting a 128k MP3 to 320?

You are not converting from 128 mp3 to 320mp3 at that point. You are converting WAV to 320 mp3.

You ALWAYS lose qualify when you encode to mp3. There is no exception.

that seems a bit too anal

Mark, he was joking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, I'm not arguing just for the hell of it but just to know

The 128k already has the high frequencies cut off . The WAV files doesn't not restore them either. So the 320 MP3 encoder would simply have nothing to remove? Or would cut off the same top end that is already missing, like "empty space" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would likely be NO audible difference that you would EVER hear converting that particular WAV to 320kbps mp3.

But TECHNICALLY, every time you make something into an mp3 it removes SOME of the original data - whether you can ever HEAR that loss or not another story.

So yes in this case, make 320 mp3s to listen to on your ipod and you'll be perfectly fine.

But in general, any time you edit ANYTHING for any reason, save your final work as WAV then convert it to FLAC.

mp3 is for listening and conserving disk space. Lossless is for archiving and trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok , that I understand

But since were dealing with a low quality radio show (until the thing is released on a c.d.), I was more focused about the "no audible difference " part instead of making huge files for nothing, and to put in my ipod

I keep my WAVS of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's my point - you don't need to keep the WAV. If you convert that WAV to FLAC, its IDENTICAL. Then you can optionally make an mp3 for portable devices.

There's no reason in the world to keep WAV AND FLAC versions of the same thing.

There IS a reason to keep FLAC AND MP3 versions - if the latter will be going on devices with limited space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you convert the same file over and over to 320kb mp3 there is loss of quality everytime you convert it.

ye, if you do it multiple times. I agree .But "first re-encode" loss of quality should be minimal

But that's my point - you don't need to keep the WAV. If you convert that WAV to FLAC, its IDENTICAL. Then you can optionally make an mp3 for portable devices.

There's no reason in the world to keep WAV AND FLAC versions of the same thing.

There IS a reason to keep FLAC AND MP3 versions - if the latter will be going on devices with limited space.

ok, that's correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you convert the same file over and over to 320kb mp3 there is loss of quality everytime you convert it.

ye, if you do it multiple times. I agree .But "first re-encode" loss of quality should be minimal

Yes, you barely hear a difference after converting it the first time. I tested it once with a file and it needed some re-converting until I heard a difference. But still, one looses quality from the beginnig on.

(is this correct english "one looses"?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you convert the same file over and over to 320kb mp3 there is loss of quality everytime you convert it.

ye, if you do it multiple times. I agree .But "first re-encode" loss of quality should be minimal

Yes, you barely hear a difference after converting it the first time. I tested it once with a file and it needed some re-converting until I heard a difference. But still, one looses quality from the beginnig on.

(is this correct english "one looses"?)

"loses", not "looses"

"loose" = not tight

"lose" = not win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you barely hear a difference after converting it the first time. I tested it once with a file and it needed some re-converting until I heard a difference. But still, one looses quality from the beginnig on.

(is this correct english "one looses"?)

"loses", not "looses"

"loose" = not tight

"lose" = not win

Don't forget, you can use "loose" as a verb, if it has an object of what you are intentionally making loose. Examples are to loose a boat from its mooring, or to loose missiles at invaders.

The most famous example that I can think of is the line "He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword" in "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" by Julia Ward Howe (1861). That might also tell you how archaic the word is in that use.

In your case, Nemesis, you don't actually hold "quality" in your hand as a holdable, countable object, and set it free when you re-convert. You started with a file, you end up with a file. Since quality is directly proportional to file size, having less quality is just a byproduct of the file conversion process.

This has been another free grammar lesson by Professor Wojo. :znaika:

I miss Blume. He used to write these, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news everybody!

After a lot of patient hassling, I finally got WGBH to reupload the Live from Frasier audio of the oboe/piano form of Williams Oboe Concerto. Enjoy!

Thank you for your efforts, tannhauser!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah huge thanks tannhauser. I didn't realize the concert had already aired and they removed the MP3 . I thought it was a future event or the website was screwed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With luck Leonard Slatkin and Detroit Symphony will record these new concertos in the future. I think they have several of the older ones in the works at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Boston pops one had an orchestral accompaniment

This one seems to be only Piano +Oboe

It's the reduction prepared by JW himself. Almost all of his concerti were reduced for soloist w/ piano accompainment. I think Hal Leonard has most of them available.

The concerto is scored for oboe and strings, likely a nod to Ralph Vaughan Williams' Oboe Concerto (which has more than a thing in common with JW's).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a beautiful piece of music. I think the piano and oboe reduction gives it a certain clarity, intimacy and enhanced lyricism.

And I can't wait for someone to record the full version some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Boston pops one had an orchestral accompaniment

This one seems to be only Piano +Oboe

It's the reduction prepared by JW himself. Almost all of his concerti were reduced for soloist w/ piano accompainment. I think Hal Leonard has most of them available.

The concerto is scored for oboe and strings, likely a nod to Ralph Vaughan Williams' Oboe Concerto (which has more than a thing in common with JW's).

In one interview Williams said he composed a piano reduction simply so the soloist would be able to practice the concerto without the entire orchestra. I'd imagine he does that for every concerto, which could explain why the reductions exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely fantastic. I love some of the pastoral music here, very much in the vein of War Horse, or shall I say Ralph Vaugh Williams. Beautiful!

I'd love to hear the full orchestral version of this.

Oh, and am I the only one who thinks John Williams was trying to hint at the danger motif at the 2nd movement, specifically at the 33rd minute of the broadcast as a whole? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this